Cheryl and Ashley denied luxury underground spa

Couple told they can’t build swimming pool and gym area

By Anonymous

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Cheryl and Ashley wanted to build a 12-by-five metre swimming pool and “a modest gym and spa” beneath their Surrey home to escape the prying eyes of paparazzi and reporters. The pair appealed when their original application was rejected by Guildford Borough Council on the grounds that it was “disproportionate” to the size of the house. But today the appeal was denied, despite their claims that their celebrity status should have made it an “exceptional” case.

Cheryl and Ashley will not be allowed to build a luxury underground spa beneath their home

X Factor judge Cheryl and her Chelsea footballer husband had argued through their planning consultant that they had a right to privacy in their home near Guildford, which is surrounded by five hectares of land. Speaking on their behalf, Jonathan Phillips said they could not go to public gyms and swimming pools.

The couple appealed earlier this year

He wrote to the Planning Inspectorate, which considered the appeal: “It is also not reasonable to suggest that they could could utilise external health and fitness facilities because (drawing upon previous experience of using such facilities), they have been subject to disturbance and aggravation from paparazzi and members of the public.” It was claimed the couple needed to stay fit and healthy because of their jobs, but that press intrusion made it impossible for them to have an outdoor pool.

Their celebrity status was not enough to convince officials

He wrote: “The press is particularly keen to photograph intimate episodes in the couple’s lives and being bedecked in swimsuits exposes the couple to greater likelihood of intrusion, particularly from overflying aircraft equipped with sophisticated photographic equipment.” A Guildford Borough Council spokeswoman said: “The planning inspector clearly found that the proposed extension was a disproportionate addition when compared to the size of the original property, amounting to inappropriate development in the green belt. “We are pleased that our original decision, which was based on policies to protect the green belt, was upheld. Planning appeal costs are considered at the time of the appeal and neither the appellants nor the council sought costs in this case.”LOVE CELEB STYLE? THEN CHECK OUT OUR OK! SHOP FOR ALL THE HOTTEST LOOKS